GIFT 
APR   4     1919 


LOUISIANA  LESPEDEZA  HAY 

VERSUS 

WESTERN  TIMOTHY  HAY 


Issued  by  HARRY  D.  WILSON, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture  and  Immigration, 

Baton  Rouge,  La. 


(A  Comparison) 
By  W.  H.  DALRYMPLE,  M.  R.  C.  V.  S.,  Louisiana  State  University. 

In  the  first  place  it  should  be  understood  that  Lespedeza, 
like  all  the  clovers,  is  a  legume  ;  while  Timothy  is  a  grass.  The 
legumes  are  much  richer  in  protein,  which  is  the  most  expensive 
element  in  a  feed,  and,  therefore,  considered  more  valuable, 
pound  for  pound,  than  the  grasses. 

The  principal  digestible  nutritive  materials  in  a  feed  are  pro- 
ten,  carbohydrates  (starches),  and  vegetable  fats  or  oils.  The 
average  percentages  of  these  nutrients  in  the  crude  state  in  Les- 
pedeza hay  and  Timothy  hay  are  as  follows  : 

Carbohy- 
Protein        drates        Fat 


Lespedeza  hay  .....................     11.70          43.80         3.60 

Timothy  hay  .......................       5.90        "45.00        2.50 

If  we  reduce  the  above  percentages  of  crude  materials  by  the 
average  percentage  of  digestibility  of  each,  we  get  the  following  : 

-Digestible  - 


Protein 

Lespedeza  hay 7.60 

Timothy  hay 2.80 

M151242 


Carbohy- 
drates 

% 

31.00  • 
28.30 


Fat 

% 

1.80 

1.40 


-Do 


The  first  table  shows  the  amounts  of  crude  materials  in  100 
pounds  of  each  of  the  two  hays;  the  second  table,  the  amounts 
that  are  digestible;  and  it  will  be  observed  that  the  Lespedeza 
hay  shows  over  100  percent  more  digestible  protein  than  is 
found  in  the  Timothy  hay. 

Again,  owing  to  the  higher  protein  content  of  Lespedeza  hay, 
it  requires  a  lesser  amount  of  it  to  balance  a  ration  with  such 
grains  as  oats  or  corn. 

For  example,  the  average  daily  requirement  in  digestible 
protein,  carbohydrates  and  fat,  or  total  carbohydrates,  if  we  re- 
duce the  fat  to  its  starch  equivalent  and  include  it  as  carbohy- 
drates, for  a  horse  or  mule,  weighing  1,000  Ibs.,  and  doing  hard 
work,  is  about  as  follows,  which  is  spoken  of  as  the  feeding 
standard  for  such  an  animal : 

Protein  (Ibs.)     Total  Carbohydrates  (Ibs.) 
2.30  14.30 

In  other  words,  in  the  day's  ration  of  grain  and  hay,  which 
should  amount  to  approximately  23.00  Ibs.,  not  including  any 
moisture,  there  should  be  2.30  Ibs.  of  digestible  protein  and  14.30 
Ibs.  of  digestible  total  carbohydrates. 

Suppose,  then,  that  we  want  to  compound  a  ration,  that  will 
approximate  the  above  standard,  out  of  shelled  corn  and  Timothy 
hay: 

Digestible — 

Total 

Dry  Matter     Protein     Carbohydrates 
Ibs.  Ibs.  Ibs.  Ibs. 

15  Shelled  corn 13.35  1.18  3 1.46 

36  Timothy  hay 31.32  1.01  16.87 


44.67  2.19  28.33 

By  comparing  this  ration  with  the  standard  requirements, 
it  will  be  noted  that,  in  order  to  approximate  the  necessary 
amount  of  protein,  alone,  36  Ibs.  of  Timothy  hay  would  have  to 
be  fed,  which  would  not  only  give  an  excess  of  over  21  Ibs.  of 
dry  matter  to  be  digested  by  the  animal,  which  would  hardly  be 


feasible  under  working  conditions,  and  yet  if  it  should  not  be 
eaten,  the  animal  would  not  receive  the  required  amount  of  pro- 
tein; and  besides,  there  would  be  a  waste  of  something  like  14 
Ibs.  of  total  carbohydrates — the  starchy  part  of  the  ration. 

Now  let  us  substitute  Lespedeza  hay  for  the  Timothy,  along 
with  the  same  amount  of  grain  (corn)  ;  and,  in  doing  so,  we  will 
use  only  13  Ibs.  of  Lespedeza  instead  of  36  Ibs.  of  the  Timothy : 

Digestible 


Dry  Matter  Protein 

Ibs.                                                   Ibs.  Ibs. 

15  Shelled  corn 13.35  1.18 

13  Lespedeza  hay 11.57  1.04 

24.92  2.22 


Total 
Carbohydrates 

Ibs. 

11.46 

6.04 


17.50 


The  above  gives  practically  a  balanced  ration  and  a  saving  of 
23  Ibs.  of  hay,  all  of  which  is  chiefly  due  to  the  greater  percent- 
age of  protein  in  the  Lespedeza  than  in  the  Timothy  hay. 

Now  let  us  take  oats  as  the  grain,  and  we  will  find  almost  a 
similar  condition: 

Digestible — 

Total 
Protein     Carbohydrates 


Dry  Matter 
Ibs.  Ibs. 

15  Oats   (grain) 13.35 

30  Timothy  hay 26.10 

39.45 


Ibs. 
1.38 
0.84 

2.22 


Ibs. 

8.52 

13.94 

22.46 


-Digestible- 


Ibs. 

15  Oats   (grain) . , 

12  Lespedeza  hay 


Dry  Matter 

Ibs. 

. .     13.35 
10.68 


Protein 
Ibs. 
1.38 
0.96 


Total 

Carbohydrates 
Ibs. 
8.52 

5.58 


24.03 


2.34 


14.10 


The  ration  with  oats  and  Timothy  hay,  of  which  30  Ibs  of  the 
latter  was  used  to  obtain  the  approximate  amount  of  protein, 
shows  an  excess  of  over  16  Ibs.  of  dry  matter  to  be  digested,  and 
a  waste  of  about  8  Ibs.  of  the  starchy  element — carbohydrates ; 
while  the  same  amount  of  oats  can.  be  balanced  by  the  addition 
of  only  12  Ibs.  of  Lespedeza  hay,  or  a  saving  in  hay  of  18  Ibs.  in 
a  day's  ration. 

From  the  above  simple  illustrations,  therefore,  the  greater 
feeding  value  of  Lespedeza  over  Timothy  hay  must  ibe  very  evi- 
dent. 

The  comparisons  made  here  are  not  for  the  purpose  of  belit- 
tling a  valuable  forage  which  belongs  to  another  section  of  the 
country  mainly,  but  to  place  our  Louisiana  product  in  its  true 
light,  and  to  afford  information  to  our  people  who  may  be  in 
ignorance  of  it,  viz.,  that  there  is  a  real  difference  in  the  feeding 
value  of  the  two  products,  and  that  the  difference  is  in  favor  of 
Lespedeza  hay  as  compared  to  Western  Timothy  hay,  as  the 
analyses,  and  other  illustrations,  plainly  show ;  and  which  should 
commend  judgment  and  discrimination  in  the  purchase  of  these 
forages. 

But  there  is  another  method  of  computation  which  may  be 
even  more  convincing,  perhaps,  than  the  bare  tables  of  analyses, 
which  is  to  reduce  the  nutritive  elements  in  each  hay  to  a  feeding- 
unit,  or  starch  (carbohydrate)  basis.  This  is  almost  universally 
accomplished  by  estimating  each  per  cent  of  crude  carbohy- 
drates as  the  unit;  each  per  cent  of  crude  protein  as  worth  2l/2 
carbohydrate  units;  and  each  per  cent  of  crude  fat  as  equal  to 
2^  carbohydrate  units.  By  this  method  it  will  be  found  from 
the  analyses  given,  that  Timothy  contains  only  approximately 
66  of  such  feeding-units ;  while  Lespedeza  hay  contains  about  81 
feeding-units. 

Now,  if  we  figure  on  the  same  basis,  which  is  identical  for 
each  hay,  the  man  who  purchases  Timothy  for,  say,  $25.00  per 
ton,  which  contains  only  66  feeding-units,  is  paying  for  each 
unit  approximately  38  cents.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  he 
pays,  say,  $15.00  per  ton  for  Lespedeza  hay,  each  unit  is  costing 
him  a  little  less  than  19  cents.  In  fact,  if  he  should  pay  as  high 


as  $25.00  per  ton  for  Lespedeza,  the  unit  would  cost  him  only  a 
fraction  over  30  cents,  or  8  cents  less  per  unit  than  for  Timothy 
at  the  same  price  per  ton. 

A  mpre  impressive  illustration  of  the  money  value  of  the 
two  hays,  based  upon  the  feeding-units  contained  in  each,  may 
be  shown  as  follows: 

Calculating  Timothy,  for  example,  at  $25.00  per  ton.  and 
Lespedeza  at  $15.00,  we  make  the  following  computation : 

If  Timothy,  with  only  66  feeding-units,  is  worth  $25.00  per 
ton,  then  Lespedeza,  with  81  feeding-units,  ought  to  be  worth 
$30.68. 

Or,  if  we  figure  it  the  other  way:  If  Lespedeza,  with  81 
feeding-units,  is  only  worth  $15.00  per  ton,  then  Timothy  with 
only  66  feeding  units,  should  only  be  worth,  in  feeding  value, 
$12.22 

These  figures  should  speak  for  themselves.  The  analysis  used 
in  each  case  is  the  published  average  analysis  of  each  of  the 
two  hays ;  the  factors  used  in  reducing  to  feeding-units  are  the 
same  in  each  case;  and  while  the  prices  per  ton  may  not  be 
exactly  those  at  present  current,  they  are  sufficiently  close  to 
serve  the  purpose  of  illustration. 

A  few  words  concerning  the  feeding  of  hay  may  not  be  inap- 
propriate here.  "With  some  feeders,  hay  simply  means  hay, 
without  any  judgment  or  discrimination,  whatever,  as  to  its 
composition,  which  has  led,  in  many  cases,  to  adverse  criticism 
of  some  of  our  most  valuable  leguminous  hays.  As  an  illustra- 
tion, if  we  refer  back  to  the  ration  showing  that  it  would  take 
36  pounds  of  Timothy  (a  grass  hay),  fed  along  with  15  Ibs.  of 
shelled  corn,  to  approximate  the  protein  requirement,  alone,  of 
the  ration;  and  that  the  ration  could  be  practically  balanced, 
in  all  of  its  nutrients,  by  the  use  of  only  13  pounds  of  Lespedeza 
(a  leguminous  hay),  it  must  be  evident  that  the  latter  contains 
a  much  larger  percentage  of  protein,  which  is  highly  nitrogenous. 
Consequently,  if  as  large  an  amount  of  leguminous  hay,  such 
as  Lespedeza,  alfalfa,  clover,  etc.,  should  be  fed  as  of  Timothy, 
or  other  grass  hay,  there  will  not  only  be  a  waste  of  protein, 


but  the  excessive  amount  in  the  system  of  the  animal  of  this 
highly  nitrogenous  principle  is  liable  to  act  deleteriously  upon 
the  kidneys;  or,  owing  to  its  chemical  composition,  break  up 
into  the  elements  of  fat  and  produce  heat  and  excessive  sweating, 
especially  in  warm  weather.  However,  neither  of  these  ab- 
normal conditions  should  be  blamed  upon  these  valuable  for- 
ages, as  such,  but  upon  the  injudicious  and  irrational  manner 
in  which  they  are  fed. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  get  a  more  forcible  example  of  the 
necessity  of  having  the  nutrients  in  a  ration  approximately  bal- 
anced for  the  needs  of  the  animal  in  order,  not  only  to  save  feed, 
but  to  prevent  the  injurious  effects  of  an  excess,  in  either  direc- 
tion, on  the  health  of  the  animal. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  figured  and  illustrations  here  given, 
of  the  comparative  feeding  value,  and,  necessarily,  the  money 
value,  of  the  two  hays  under  discussion,  may  have  the  effect  of 
making  our  producers  and  feeders  of  Lespedeza  hay  realize  more 
fully  the  greater  value  of  the  home  product.  In  fact,  instead 
of  our  buying  so  much  of  the  western  product  (Timothy),  and 
usually  at  such  an  exorbitant  price  for  the  number  of  feeding- 
units  it  contains,  we  should  not  only  consume  our  more  nutri- 
tious Lespedeza  at  home,  but  we  should  endeavor  to  introduce  it 
into  other  sections  of  the  country  not  yet  familiar  with  it ;  and 
its  price  should  be  in  keeping  with  its  feeding  value. 

We  should  like  to  impress  the  fact,  however,  that  the  Lespe- 
deza we  have  been  figuring  on,  and  the  analysis  we  have  given, 
represents  a  high  quality  of  hay,  and  not  the  poor  grades  that 
we  sometimes  see  on  the  market.  We  are  inclined  to  the  opinion 
that  some  of  the  producers  of  so-called  Lespedeza  hay  do  not  fully 
realize  the  importance  of  purity  or  quality  of  their  product  as  a 
readily  saleable  and  marketable  article. 

To  encourage  a  wider  consumption  of  this  hay,  the  utmost 
,  pains  should  be  taken  in  its  production,  and  in  its  prime  condi- 
tion for  market.  Where  it  is  possible,  all  inferior  grades,  and 
Lespedeza  straw,  or  hay  from  which  the  seed  has  been  threshed, 
should  be  fed  at  home,  and  only  the  best  and  purest  product 
placed  upon  the  market,  unless  the  inferior  grades  are  classified 


and  sold  for  what  they  really  are.  It  is  poor  business  policy  to 
try  to  "fool  the  other  fellow,"  or  the  market.  It  may  perhaps 
be  accomplished  once,  but  is  not  likely  to  be  done  a  second  time, 
and  the  "goose  that  is  laying  the  golden  egg"  is  liable  to  get  a 
severe  shock,  if  not  entirely  killed.  And,  once  killed,  is  very 
difficult  to  revive.  So  that,  while  in  our  Lespedeza  hay  we  have 
a  most  valuable  forage  crop,  either  for  home  consumption  or 
for  market,  we  must  guard  it  very  jealously  as  to  quality  of 
product,  if  we  may  hope  to  make  the  most  out  of  it,  especially 
as  a  readily  marketable  farm  product.  If  we  will  take  the  neces- 
sary pains  to  produce  it  in  the  best  and  most  saleable  condition, 
the  market  will  take  care  of  itself. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


